Dr. Graeme MacQueen and Dr. Shyam Sunder interviewed on Ontario radio - 8.25.2008
Talk radio station CKNX in Wingham, Ontario hosted a discussion with Dr. Sunder and Dr. MacQueen on Monday morning. MacQueen had this to say of the talk;
This moderated discussion between Shyam Sunder and me took place beginning at 11:05 a.m. on August 25, 2008. The talk show host, Bryan Allen of CKNX Radio, had interviewed Barrie Zwicker and me previously, and I found him very reasonable and open, so when he asked me if I would appear with Shyam Sunder I agreed. I thought Bryan did a good job in this discussion.
I don't offer this radio appearance as proof of my prowess or as a claim of "victory." I think things are much more complex than that. Sunder is a cool customer and in this interview he does well, I think, especially given what I regard as the absurdity of what he's defending. I have no idea how this show would have come across to the average listener: maybe they'd be reassured by him and would conclude I'm a nut. But the questions of both the interviewer and the call-in guy are encouragingly good and suggest that the new report will not be passively accepted by everyone.
In any case, we need to do these debates when we can and after they’re finished we need to listen to them to see where NIST's strong and weak points are and how we might improve our own position and method. It is in this spirit that I offer the audio of this discussion.
Graeme MacQueen
Streaming Putfile here;
http://media.putfile.com/Dr-Graeme-MacQueen-and-Dr-Shyam-Sunder
Download here (8mb);
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/macqueen-sunder-8-25-2008.mp3
Previous presentation by Macqueen; (3.19.2008)
http://www.911blogger.com/node/15793
- Login to post comments
Support Richard Gage!! ANYONE can sign the petition.
ANYONE can sign the petition at www.AE911Truth.org. -- Please sign...and encourage others to also sign. -- http://www.ae911truth.org/ Support "Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth".
meh
Tom is absolutely right. The "other supporters" catagory has only 2 thousand or so signatures. Hell, the Watchmen movie adaption petition has 4000 in one week, I think we can do better.
bill hicks! Thanks!! Richard loves hearing support like yours.
Thanks for helping push this! ANYONE can sign. We all need to support AE911Truth.org !!
I signed it, even though I am not an architect or engineer.
I saw that Anyone can sign the petition. I actually meet those qualifications. Thanks Tom.
Great Rob!!
Keep spreading the word.
Graeme MacQueen had the TRUTH on his side
Graeme MacQueen told the truth, SHAM Sunder did not.
I think MacQueen won the debate, but I am partial to the truth.
GM's statement that he respects Sham Sunder was too generous
considering what Sham set out to do, which was to Bamboozle the public.
The caller didn't buy Sham's SOS either.
I don't write here often,
I don't write here often, but I found this interview was really impressive, I'd like to thank Dr. MacQueen for his excellent, focused presentation, without exaggeration. Dr. MacQueens professionalism is something to be admired.
This is also very impressive
I totally agree, the format of the interview
also was helpful and the participants could make their points clear to the listener.
At the end though when Mr MacQueen had great momentum the host interfered and took the attention away from the physics of WTC7 and focused it on the stupid and unanswerable "why would they want to distroy WTC7?"
Pure distraction but Mac Queen answered VERY intelligently anyhow.
We need more of this type of confrontations!
A Forensic Analysis of 9/11 52 minutes
Well done Dr. McQueen.
Thank you Dr. McQueen. You were brilliant. Your points are valid. You did a great service to the movement. I am so glad you are part of the Truth seeking team.
I have a few questions and an observation.
Why didn't UL just make computer models for their tests? They did actual physical tests and then tried to cover up the results. Could this be why Dr. Sham didn't do physical tests? Why wouldn't you test the thermal expansion hypothesis by building a scale physical model of the building? Are physical tests better indicators than computer models? Isn't it true that when computer models are used, one can massage the input numbers to get the desired results? Could we FOIA their models and their data entered?
After the building came down, were there long pretzel like columns wadded up in the debris, or were there beams cut in truck trailer length pieces like is reported about WTC 1 and 2?
Observations:
The NIST published on their website a picture showing a tall stack of papers representing the so called study. So for Dr. Sham to say that his job wasn't to convince skeptics is bogus. The photo is a classic PR tactic trying to emphasize by showing the quantity of paper, that this report is thorough and above reproach. Unfortunately for them, quantity doesn't necessarily translate to quality.
As I have stated before, if there weren't criminal implications to the CD conclusion, they would have come to that conclusion in a very short amount of time. CD by thermate wasn't on their menu and could not be their conclusion. Imagine the fallout for Dr. Sham if he came to the conclusion that WTC 7 was demolished by controlled demolition. Would he keep his job? Would his life be in danger? You see, CD was not an option for him or any of the other NIST tools that worked on this project. That, my friends, is what you call extreme bias and nullifies the objectivity of the study.
You see Dr. Sham works for NIST. NIST is under the Department Of Commerce. The Secretary of the Department of Commerce is a cabinet position under Cheney/Bush.
Since many of us believe that the US is a Corporatocracy, it seems fitting that the coverup report would come from the Department of Commerce.
Well done professor.
Very concise arguments, in the end Sunder had to admit in a round about way by saying that this report was not successful in convincing skeptics, because "it was never our goal to convince skeptics". MacQueen has always impressed me.
"it was never our goal to convince skeptics"
Nothing but the truth will convince us.
"it was never our goal to convince skeptics. Our goal was to produce a bogus report and steer the public away from the fact that this fortress was imploded by controlled demolition." Sunder said.
Sunder was given a
Sunder was given a disproportionate time to speak by the moderator for starters. Sunder seemed to suggest that buildings are only designed to withstand vertical forces (the weight of the building itself) as well as earthquakes. He stated that the “simple connections” used are not to meant to handle lateral forces meaning those produced from fires and “thermal expansion”. But doesn’t an earthquake generate a lateral force? If this is true then he contradicted himself. He on one hand admitted that buildings are designed to withstand earthquakes but then claimed that they’re not designed to handle lateral forces. The problem is that earthquakes DO produce lateral forces which would be very similar to that of what he described as thermal expansion and designers apparently DO prepare for this type of phenomenon.
http://www.sala.ubc.ca/
Please see here:
http://www.arch.ubc.ca/courses/build_tech_structures.html
"Utilizing the basic principles established in Architectural Structures 1, this course expands the agenda from single-span structures into multi-span systems. Quantitative investigation and comparison of wood, steel and concrete elements and structural systems characterize the studies, with emphasis on horizontally spanning elements. Qualitative study of various reinforced and precast concrete framing systems and other structural elements such as walls, columns, foundations etc. Introduction to earthquakes and lateral force resisting systems."
Some clarification
While I am not defending Dr. Sham, in all fairness, he did clarify that the interior joints only were simple connections. He stated that the building was designed with moment-resistant (bending) connections on the exterior columns, which would have been designed to manage both wind and seismic loading. In a location like New York, wind loads will be far more significant than seismic loads.
Oh, so it was thermal expansion that did it!?
Bullshit! Why wasn't there thermal expansion enough to cause collapse in any other building fires? Especially the ones that burned longer.
And....
what's Sunder talking about when he mentions a progressive collapse at Roland Point (?) in the UK in the late 60s? I can't find anything about that so far.
Ronan Point
You can read about it here: Ronan Point
good link
thanks!
Progressive collapse of one corner...
... can hardly be compared to a near-freefall destruction of an entire 47-floor skyscraper.
I work in an office building. In the room where I work, I don't see so much material that would burn in the first place. I cannot see the support columns because they are encased in gypsum. The idea of an office fire burning until it dies out in this room causing the isolated steel to heat up dramatically appears ridiculous.
Did NIST resort to the thermal expansion hypothesis because steel needs a much lower temperature to expand somewhat than it needs to catastrophically weaken?
Thank you Tanabear...
It says the even this collapse was believed to be the result of an explosion. Natural gas explosions that took out several flats. Fire was not the cause of the collapse. Sunder is full of shit!
Some Observations:
1) Dr. Sunder never answered the very logical point by Graeme that points 2-12 were hypotheticals, not evidence. Not PHYSICAL evidence.
2) Dr. Sunder attacks this criticism by noting -- disingenuously, I believe -- that modern aircraft are designed on computer and then fly.
No one is suggesting that computer modeling is not useful, it is simply NOT the best evidence. Models could have been built of the
assemblies and heat tested.
3) If the steel members had been preserved then there would have been HARD evidence of the temperatures obtained and the stresses
experienced.
If NIST was actually interested ......
It is a well-known fact that Dr. Steven Jones and Richard Gage are at the top of the list of professionals who have done very extensive work challenging NIST's explanations of the collapse of WTC 7 (as well as WTC 1 and2).
If NIST was actually interested in discovering the cause of the building collapses they would have been very eager to discuss the work of Dr. Jones and Richard Gage with them. After all, these two men are looked upon by 10s of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands or millions of people the world over - including hundreds of degreed professionals) as authorities in physics and structural engineering.
If Dr. Sunder was sincerely interested in knowing why the buildings collapsed he would have implored Dr. Jones and Richard Gage to please, please, please - in the service of our country and in the service of building safety --- come in to our offices at NIST and bring your research and share it with us.
The fact that Dr. Sunder didn't seek out Dr. Jones and Richard Gage - two enormous storehouses of knowledge, research and expertise --- proves that he had no interest in scientific research at all. Research means reaching out and searching -- not barring the door.
So WHY, Dr. Sunder did you not reach out and search? What where you afraid of discovering?
Of course Dr. Jones and Richard Gage are only two many, many, many great 9/11 researchers. You all know who you are, and I trust I have not offended any of you by citing Dr. Jones and Richard Gage in this post.
Great job Graeme.
Excellent point zmzmzm !!! Intention of Sunder comes to lite.
Very good point! It demonstrates that Sunder or NIST had NO INTENTION to discover the truth or to seek the truth. That action of purposefully discounting Jones et al shows motive. It shows the aim of not wanting truth.
computer modeling
If NIST had wanted to, they could have developed a computer model that showed CD brought the building down. Hell, they could have probably developed a computer model that showed that energy beams brought it down! As Mr. MacQueen cleverly pointed out to them, their theory is based on zero evidence. NIST chose to cherry pick the evidence that was available to them, ignore all evidence that was contrary to their hypothesis, and develop some wacky computer model to confirm it. I really fear for the future of science.
Thanks again, Graeme
for your civil, rational efforts. Another class act.
“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson
MOLTEN METAL CAN'T BE EXPLAINED AWAY
Very solid job by Dr. MacQueen..............but......why in the holy heck didn't he ask Dr. Sunder about the "rivers" of moleten metal that existed for WEEKS under the rubble of collapsed WTC 7? Why didn't he ask about the USGS thermal images that showed temperatures in excess of 2,000 degrees F at the collapse site for WEEKS after the collapse even though tens of thousands of gallons of water were continuously applied to it?
As the NIST already admits, the temperatures of the fires in WTC 7 came nowhere near the extreme temperatures required to melt steel.
Where then, did this extreme heat come from? Where did all the molten metal come from? Where? How is it possible?
People have to know about the molten metal. The government stooges, of course, will never so much as whisper the phrase. They have to ignore or deny its existence at all costs or they are cooked. It can't be explained away.
Lots and lots of molten metal at all 3 collapses sites (and NONE at any of the sites of buildings that were pummled by debris and burned but didn't collapse).
Where the hell did it come from? It is a simple and obvious question that NO ONE from the government side has ever addressed.